Pragmatism and feasibility: A qualitative study of experiences implementing and upgrading care in geriatric emergency departments.

Objectives: Implementation and sustainability of new care processes in emergency departments (EDs) is difficult. We describe experiences of implementing geriatric care processes in EDs that upgraded their accreditation level for the Geriatric Emergency Department Accreditation (GEDA) program. These EDs can provide a model for adopting and sustaining guidelines for evidence-based geriatric care. Methods: We performed qualitative interviews with geriatric ED nurse and physician leaders overseeing their ED's geriatric accreditation processes. The interview guide was based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a framework consisting of a comprehensive set of factors that impact implementation of evidence-based interventions. We used inductive analysis to elucidate key themes from interviews and deductive analysis to map themes onto CFIR constructs. Results: Clinician leaders from 15 of 19 EDs that upgraded accreditation status by March 1, 2023 participated in interviews. Motivations to upgrade accreditation level centered on improving patient care (73%) and achieving recognition (56%). Rationales for choosing specific care processes were more commonly related to feasibility (40%) and ability to integrate the processes into the electronic health record (33%) than to site-specific patient needs (20%). Several common experiences in implementation were identified: (1) financing from the larger health system or philanthropy was crucial; (2) translating the Geriatric ED Guidelines into clinical practice was challenging for clinician leaders; (3) motivational barriers existed among frontline ED staff; (4) longitudinal staff education was needed given frontline ED staff attrition and turnover; and (5) the electronic health record facilitated implementation of geriatric screenings. Conclusions: Geriatric ED accreditation involves significant time, resource allocation, and longitudinal staff commitment. EDs pursuing geriatric accreditation balance aspirations to improve patient care with resource availability to implement new care processes and competing priorities.

Geriatric screening in the emergency department increases consultations to geriatric medicine and physical and occupational therapy: A pre/post cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Geriatric Emergency Department (ED) Guidelines recommend screening older patients for need for evaluation by geriatric medicine, physical therapy (PT), and occupational therapy (OT), but explicit evidence that geriatric screening changes care compared to physician gestalt is lacking. We assessed changes in multidisciplinary consultation after implementation of standardized geriatric screening in the ED. METHODS: Retrospective single-site observational cohort of older adult ED patients from 2019 to 2023 with three time periods: (1) preimplementation, (2) implementation of geriatric screening, and (3) postimplementation. Geriatric, PT, and OT consultations/referrals were available during all time periods. Descriptive analysis was stratified by disposition: discharged, observation and discharged, observation and hospital admission, and hospital admission. The independent variable was completion of three geriatric screening tools by ED nurses. The dependent variable was consultation and/or referral to geriatrics, PT, and OT. Secondary outcomes were disposition, ED revisits, and 30-day rehospitalizations. RESULTS: There were 57,775 qualifying ED visits of patients age ≥ 65 years during the time periods: implementation increased geriatric screening from 0.5% to 63.2%; postimplementation, discharge patients who received screening had more consultations/referrals to geriatrics (1.5% vs. 0.4%), PT (7.9% vs. 1.9%), and OT (6.5% vs. 1.2%) compared to unscreened patients. Patients observed and then discharged had more consultations/referrals to geriatrics (15.1% vs. 11.3%), PT (74.1% vs. 64.5%), and OT (65.7% vs. 56.5%). Admitted patients had no change in consultation rates. Geriatric screening was not associated with a change in 7-day ED revisits for discharged patients but was associated with decreased revisits for patients discharged from observation (11.6% vs. 42.9%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Geriatric screening was associated with increased consultations/referrals to geriatrics, PT, and OT in the ED and ED observation unit. This suggests that geriatric screening changes ED care for older adults.

Nursing Home to Emergency Care Transition Form Has Limited Uptake But Improves Documentation.

Critical information gaps exist in nursing home-to-emergency department (NH-ED) transfer documentation. Standardization of forms may address these gaps. In a single state, a Continuity of Care Acute Care Transfer (CoC) Form was standardized and mandated to be used for all NH-ED transfers. The objective of this study was to evaluate adoption and effectiveness of the standardized CoC form. We used a random cross-sectional sample of 2019-2022 electronic health record encounter data to determine NH-ED documentation completeness after standardized CoC form implementation. Using patient characteristic adjusted linear and logistic regressions, we examined if CoC form standardization was associated with the number of key elements present on NH-ED transfer documentation and hospital admission, respectively. We then compared documentation completeness (out of 15 key data elements) to previously published pre-implementation data (2015-2016, n = 474). Of the 203 NH-ED transfer visits after CoC standardization (2019-2022), mean patient age was 81.8 years and 41.4% had dementia. Any NH-ED transfer form was present for 80.8% (n = 164) of encounters and 28.6% (n = 58) used the standardized CoC form. In comparison with the 2015-2016 data, there was an increase in documentation for functional baseline (20% to 30%), cognitive baseline (25% to 37%), and reason for transfer (25% to 82%). Post implementation, the use of the standardized CoC form was (1) associated with 2.55 (95% CI, 1.66-3.44) more key data elements documented and (2) not associated with a decreased odds of admission [odds ratio (OR), 1.06; 95% CI, 0.54-2.05] after controlling for confounders. Implementation of a statewide standardized CoC form for NH-ED transfers improved documentation of key elements, yet significant information gaps remain. Implementation evaluation is needed to identify how to achieve greater uptake of the form and improve the quality of information exchange between NHs and EDs.

Enhancing healthcare access for an older population: The age-friendly emergency department.

Healthcare systems face significant challenges in meeting the unique needs of older adults, particularly in the acute setting. Age-friendly healthcare is a comprehensive approach using the 4Ms framework-what matters, medications, mentation, and mobility-to ensure that healthcare settings are responsive to the needs of older patients. The Age-Friendly Emergency Department (AFED) is a crucial component of a holistic age-friendly health system. Our objective is to provide an overview of the AFED model, its core principles, and the benefits to older adults and healthcare clinicians. The AFED optimizes the delivery of emergency care by integrating age-specific considerations into various aspects of (1) ED physical infrastructure, (2) clinical care policies, and (3) care transitions. Physical infrastructure incorporates environmental modifications to enhance patient safety, including adequate lighting, nonslip flooring, and devices for sensory and ambulatory impairment. Clinical care policies address the physiological, cognitive, and psychosocial needs of older adults while preserving focus on emergency issues. Care transitions include communication and involving community partners and case management services. The AFED prioritizes collaboration between interdisciplinary team members (ED clinicians, geriatric specialists, nurses, physical/occupational therapists, and social workers). By adopting an age-friendly approach, EDs have the potential to improve patient-centered outcomes, reduce adverse events and hospitalizations, and enhance functional recovery. Moreover, healthcare clinicians benefit from the AFED model through increased satisfaction, multidisciplinary support, and enhanced training in geriatric care. Policymakers, healthcare administrators, and clinicians must collaborate to standardize guidelines, address barriers to AFEDs, and promote the adoption of age-friendly practices in the ED.

The Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) and emergency department observation and admission rates: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency Department (ED) Observation Units (OU) can provide safe, effective care for low risk patients with intracranial hemorrhages. We compared current ED OU use for patients with subdural hematomas (SDH) to the validated Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) to evaluate the potential impact of implementing this risk stratification tool. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of patients ≥18 years old with SDH of any cause from 2014 to 2020 to evaluate for potential missed OU cases. Missed OU cases were defined as patients with an initial Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) of 15 with hospital length of stays (LOS) <2 days, who did not meet the composite outcome and were not cared for in the OU or discharged from the ED. Composite outcome included in-hospital death or transition to hospice care, neurosurgical intervention, GCS decline, and worsening SDH size. Secondary outcomes were whether application of BIG would increase ED OU use or reduce CT use. RESULTS: 264 patients met inclusion criteria over 5.3 year study timeframe. Mean age was 61 years (range 19-93) and 61.4% were male. SDH were traumatic in 76.9% and 60.2% of the cohort had additional injuries. The admission rate was 81.4% (n = 215). Fourteen (6.5%) missed OU cases were identified (2.6/year). Retrospective application of BIG resulted in 82.6% (n = 217) at BIG 3, 10.2% (n = 27) at BIG 2 and 7.6% (n = 20) at BIG 1. Application of BIG would not have decreased admission rates (82.6% BIG 3) and BIG 1 and 2 admissions were often for medical co-morbidities. The composite outcome was met in 50% of BIG 3, 22% of BIG 2, and no BIG 1 patients. CONCLUSION: In a level 1 trauma center with an established observation unit, current clinical care processes missed very few patients who could be discharged or placed in ED OU for SDH. Hospital admissions in BIG 1/2 were driven by co-morbidities and/or injuries, limiting applicability of BIG to this population.

Integrating Hospice and Palliative Medicine Education Within the American Board of Emergency Medicine Model.

Background: Hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) is a board-certified subspecialty within emergency medicine (EM), but prior studies have shown that EM residents do not receive sufficient training in HPM. Experts in HPM-EM created a consensus list of competencies for HPM training in EM residency. We evaluated how the HPM competencies integrate within the American Board of Emergency Medicine Milestones, which include the Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine (EM Model) and the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) list. Methods: Three emergency physicians independently mapped the HPM-EM competencies onto the 2019 EM Model items and the 2021 KSAs. Discrepancies were resolved by a fourth independent reviewer, and the final mapping was reviewed by all team members. Results: The EM Model included 78% (18/23) of the HPM competencies as a direct match, and we identified recommended areas for incorporating the other five. The KSAs included 43% (10/23). Most HPM competencies included in the KSAs mapped onto at least one level B (minimal necessary for competency) KSA. Three HPM competencies were not clearly included in the EM Model or in the KSAs (treating end-of-life symptoms, caring for the imminently dying, and caring for patients under hospice care). Conclusion: The majority of HPM-EM competencies are included in the current EM Model and KSAs and correspond to knowledge needed to be competent in EM. Programs relying on the EM Milestones to plan their curriculums may miss training in symptom management and care for patients at the end of life or who are on hospice.

Geriatric Emergency Medication Safety Recommendations (GEMS-Rx): Modified Delphi Development of a High-Risk Prescription List for Older Emergency Department Patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Half of emergency department (ED) patients aged 65 years and older are discharged with new prescriptions. Potentially inappropriate prescriptions contribute to adverse drug events. Our objective was to develop an evidence- and consensus-based list of high-risk prescriptions to avoid among older ED patients. METHODS: We performed a modified, 3-round Delphi process that included 10 ED physician experts in geriatrics or quality measurement and 1 pharmacist. Consensus members reviewed all 35 medication categories from the 2019 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria and ranked each on a 5-point Likert scale (5=highest) for overall priority for avoidance (Round 1), risk of short-term adverse events and avoidability (Round 2), and reasonable medical indications for high-risk medication use (Round 3). RESULTS: For each round, questionnaire response rates were 91%, 82%, and 64%, respectively. After Round 1, benzodiazepines (mean, 4.60 [SD, 0.70]), skeletal muscle relaxants (4.60 [0.70]), barbiturates (4.30 [1.06]), first-generation antipsychotics (4.20 [0.63]) and first-generation antihistamines (3.70 [1.49]) were prioritized for avoidance. In Rounds 2 and 3, hypnotic "Z" drugs (4.29 [1.11]), metoclopramide (3.89 [0.93]), and sulfonylureas (4.14 [1.07]) were prioritized for avoidability, despite lower concern for short-term adverse events. All 8 medication classes were included in the final list. Reasonable indications for prescribing high-risk medications included seizure disorders, benzodiazepine/ethanol withdrawal, end of life, severe generalized anxiety, allergic reactions, gastroparesis, and prescription refill. CONCLUSION: We present the first expert consensus-based list of high-risk prescriptions for older ED patients (GEMS-Rx) to improve safety among older ED patients.

Core requirements of frailty screening in the emergency department: an international Delphi consensus study.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty is associated with adverse outcomes among patients attending emergency departments (EDs). While multiple frailty screens are available, little is known about which variables are important to incorporate and how best to facilitate accurate, yet prompt ED screening. To understand the core requirements of frailty screening in ED, we conducted an international, modified, electronic two-round Delphi consensus study. METHODS: A two-round electronic Delphi involving 37 participants from 10 countries was undertaken. Statements were generated from a prior systematic review examining frailty screening instruments in ED (logistic, psychometric and clinimetric properties). Reflexive thematic analysis generated a list of 56 statements for Round 1 (August-September 2021). Four main themes identified were: (i) principles of frailty screening, (ii) practicalities and logistics, (iii) frailty domains and (iv) frailty risk factors. RESULTS: In Round 1, 13/56 statements (23%) were accepted. Following feedback, 22 new statements were created and 35 were re-circulated in Round 2 (October 2021). Of these, 19 (54%) were finally accepted. It was agreed that ideal frailty screens should be short (<5 min), multidimensional and well-calibrated across the spectrum of frailty, reflecting baseline status 2-4 weeks before presentation. Screening should ideally be routine, prompt (<4 h after arrival) and completed at first contact in ED. Functional ability, mobility, cognition, medication use and social factors were identified as the most important variables to include. CONCLUSIONS: Although a clear consensus was reached on important requirements of frailty screening in ED, and variables to include in an ideal screen, more research is required to operationalise screening in clinical practice.

The salivary microbiota of patients with acute lower respiratory tract infection-A multicenter cohort study.

The human microbiome contributes to health and disease, but the oral microbiota is understudied relative to the gut microbiota. The salivary microbiota is easily accessible, underexplored, and may provide insight into response to infections. We sought to determine the composition, association with clinical features, and heterogeneity of the salivary microbiota in patients with acute lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 147 adults with acute LRTI presenting to the emergency department of seven hospitals in three states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio) between May 2017 and November 2018. Salivary samples were collected in the emergency department, at days 2-5 if hospitalized, and at day 30, as well as fecal samples if patients were willing. We compared salivary microbiota profiles from patients to those of healthy adult volunteers by sequencing and analyzing bacterial 16-rRNA. Compared to healthy volunteers, the salivary microbiota of patients with LRTI was highly distinct and strongly enriched with intestinal anaerobes such as Bacteroidaceae, Ruminococcaceae, and Lachnospiraceae (e.g., mean 10% relative abundance of Bacteroides vs < 1% in healthy volunteers). Within the LRTI population, COPD exacerbation was associated with altered salivary microbiota composition compared to other LRTI conditions. The largest determinant of microbiota variation within the LRTI population was geography (city in which the hospital was located).

Integration of Geriatric Education Within the American Board of Emergency Medicine Model.

Background: Emergency medicine (EM) resident training is guided by the American Board of Emergency Medicine Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine (EM Model) and the EM Milestones as developed based on the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) list. These are consensus documents developed by a collaborative working group of seven national EM organizations. External experts in geriatric EM also developed competency recommendations for EM residency education in geriatrics, but these are not being taught in many residency programs. Our objective was to evaluate how the geriatric EM competencies integrate/overlap with the EM Model and KSAs to help residency programs include them in their educational curricula. Methods: Trained emergency physicians independently mapped the geriatric resident competencies onto the 2019 EM Model items and the 2021 KSAs using Excel spreadsheets. Discrepancies were resolved by an independent reviewer with experience with the EM Model development and resident education, and the final mapping was reviewed by all team members. Results: The EM Model included 77% (20/26) of the geriatric competencies. The KSAs included most of the geriatric competencies (81%, 21/26). All but one of the geriatric competencies mapped onto either the EM Model or the KSAs. Within the KSAs, most of the geriatric competencies mapped onto necessary level skills (ranked B, C, D, or E) with only five (8%) also mapping onto advanced skills (ranked A). Conclusion: All but one of the geriatric EM competencies mapped to the current EM Model and KSAs. The geriatric competencies correspond to knowledge at all levels of training within the KSAs, from beginner to expert in EM. Educators in EM can use this mapping to integrate the geriatric competencies within their curriculums.

Automating risk stratification for geriatric syndromes in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric emergency department (GED) guidelines endorse screening older patients for geriatric syndromes in the ED, but there have been significant barriers to widespread implementation. The majority of screening programs require engagement of a clinician, nurse, or social worker, adding to already significant workloads at a time of record-breaking ED patient volumes, staff shortages, and hospital boarding crises. Automated, electronic health record (EHR)-embedded risk stratification approaches may be an alternate solution for extending the reach of the GED mission by directing human actions to a smaller subset of higher risk patients. METHODS: We define the concept of automated risk stratification and screening using existing EHR data. We discuss progress made in three potential use cases in the ED: falls, cognitive impairment, and end-of-life and palliative care, emphasizing the importance of linking automated screening with systems of healthcare delivery. RESULTS: Research progress and operational deployment vary by use case, ranging from deployed solutions in falls screening to algorithmic validation in cognitive impairment and end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: Automated risk stratification offers a potential solution to one of the most pressing problems in geriatric emergency care: identifying high-risk populations of older adults most appropriate for specific GED care. Future work is needed to realize the promise of improved care with less provider burden by creating tools suitable for widespread deployment as well as best practices for their implementation and governance.

Involuntary sedation of patients in the emergency department for mental health: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Involuntary sedation of agitated mental health patients in the Emergency Department (ED) is standard practice to obtain accurate medical assessments and maintain safety. However, the rate of this practice and what factors are associated with the use of involuntary sedation is unknown. The purpose of this study was to obtain baseline data on involuntary sedation in our EDs. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients with ED visits for mental health care in 2020-2021. Patients >12 years old who received both a psychiatry consultation and involuntary sedation were included. Data variables included demographics, medical and mental health diagnoses, sedatives given, substance use, ED length of stay, and disposition. The primary outcome was repeated involuntary sedation. RESULTS: Involuntary sedation was used in 18.8% of the mental health patients screened for study inclusion. 334 patients were included in the study cohort and 31.6% (n = 106) required repeated involuntary sedation. Their average age was 35.5 ± 13.5 years with 58.4% men, 40.1% women, and 1.2% transgender persons. Most (90.0%, n = 299) had prior mental health diagnoses with the most common being substance use disorder (38.9%, n = 130), bipolar disorder (34.1%, n = 114), depressive disorder (29.0%, n = 97), and schizophrenia (24.3%, n = 81). Two-thirds (65.9%, n = 220) had current substance use and 41.9% (n = 142) reported current use with a chemical associated with aggression. Hospital security was called for 73.1% (n = 244). Current cocaine, methamphetamines, or alcohol use was associated with decreased odds of repeated sedation (0.52 OR, 95% CI 0.32-0.85). Prior mental health diagnosis and non-white race were associated with increased odds of repeated sedation. In the multivariable regression, the effect of race was more significant. CONCLUSIONS: Involuntary sedation was used in 18.8% of ED patients for mental health care and almost a third were repeatedly sedated, with race being a potential risk factor for repeated sedation. ED care could benefit from evidence-based interventions to reduce the need for involuntary sedation.

Establishment of baseline urinary antimicrobial peptide levels by age: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are key effectors of urinary tract innate immunity. Identifying differences in urinary AMP levels between younger and older adults is important in understanding older adults' susceptibility and response to urinary tract infections (UTI) and AMP use as diagnostic biomarkers. We hypothesized that uninfected older adults have higher urinary human neutrophil peptides 1-3 (HNP 1-3), human alpha-defensin-5 (HD-5), and human beta-defensin-2 (hBD-2), but lower urinary cathelicidin (LL-37) than younger adults. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients age ≥18 years completing a family medicine clinic non-acute visit. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) were performed for AMPs. We identified associations between age and AMPs using unadjusted and multivariable linear regression models. RESULTS: Of the 308 subjects, 144 (46.8%) were ≥65 years of age. Comparing age ≥65 versus <65 years, there were no significant differences in HNP 1-3 (p=0.371), HD5 (p=0.834) or LL-37 (p=0.348) levels. Values for hBD-2 were lower in older adults versus younger (p <0.001). In multivariable analyses, older males and females had significantly lower hBD-2 levels (p<0.001 and p=0.004). Models also showed urine leukocyte esterase was associated with increased levels of HNP 1-3 and HD5; hematuria with increased hBD-2; and urine cultures with contamination with increased HNP 1-3 and hBD-2. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline urinary HNP 1-3, HD5, and LL-37 did not vary with age. Older adults had lower baseline hBD-2. This finding has implications for the potential use of urinary AMPs as diagnostic markers and will facilitate further investigation into the role of innate immunity in UTI susceptibility in older adults.

Emergency department patient and physician survey accuracy compared to chart abstraction in patients with acute respiratory illness.

BACKGROUND: High-quality research studies in older adults are needed. Unfortunately, the accuracy of chart review data in older adult patients has been called into question by previous studies. Little is known on this topic in patients with suspected pneumonia, a disease with 500,000 annual older adult U.S. emergency department (ED) visits that presents a diagnostic challenge to ED physicians. The study objective was to compare direct interview and chart abstraction as data sources. METHODS: We present a preplanned secondary analysis of a prospective, observational cohort of ED patients ≥65 years of age with suspected pneumonia in two Midwest EDs. We describe the agreement between chart review and a criterion standard of prospective direct patient survey (symptoms) or direct physician survey (examination findings). Data were collected by chart review and from the patient and treating physician by survey. RESULTS: The larger study enrolled 135 older adults; 134 with complete symptom data and 129 with complete examination data were included in this analysis. Pneumonia symptoms (confusion, malaise, rapid breathing, any cough, new/worse cough, any sputum production, change to sputum) had agreement between patient/legally authorized representative survey and chart review ranging from 47.8% (malaise) to 80.6% (confusion). All examination findings (rales, rhonchi, wheeze) had percent agreement between physician survey and chart review of ≥80%. However, all kappas except wheezing were less than 0.60, indicating weak agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Both patient symptoms and examination findings demonstrated discrepancies between chart review and direct survey with larger discrepancies in symptoms reported. Researchers should consider these potential discrepancies during study design and data interpretation.

Emergency department course of patients with asthma receiving initial emergency medical services care-Perspectives From the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

Objective: Although 911 calls for acute shortness of breath are common, the role of emergency medical services (EMS) in acute asthma care is unclear. We sought to characterize the demographics, course, and outcomes of adult emergency department (ED) patients with asthma in the United States receiving initial EMS care. Methods: We analyzed data from the 2016-2019 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). We included patients aged ≥18 years with an ED visit diagnosis of asthma, stratifying the cases according to initial EMS care. Accounting for the survey design of NHAMCS, we generated nationalized estimates of the number of EMS and non-EMS asthma visits. Using logistic regression, we determined the associations between initial EMS care and patient demographics (age, sex, race, and insurance type), ED course (initial vital signs, triage category, testing, medications), and outcomes (hospital admission, ED length of stay). Results: Of 435 million adult ED visits during 2016-2019, there were ≈5.3 million related to asthma (1.3 million annually, 1.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1%-1.4%). A total of 602,569 (150,642 annually, 11.3%; 95% CI, 8.6%-14.8%) ED patients with asthma received initial EMS care. Compared with non-EMS asthma patients, EMS asthma patients were more likely to present with an "urgent" ED triage category (odds ratio [OR], 22.2; 95% CI, 6.6-74.9) and to undergo laboratory (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.41-5.46) or imaging tests (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.21-4.83). ED patients with asthma receiving initial EMS care were almost 3 times more likely to be admitted to the hospital (OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.27-6.25). There were no differences in demographics, ED use of ß-agonists or corticosteroids, or ED length of stay between EMS and non-EMS asthma patients. Conclusions: Approximately 1 in 10 adult ED patients with asthma receive initial care by EMS. EMS asthma patients present to the ED with higher acuity, undergo more diagnostic testing in the ED, and are more likely to be admitted. Although limited in information regarding the prehospital course, these findings highlight the more severe illness of asthma patients transported by EMS and underscore the importance of EMS in emergency asthma care.

Implementation of geriatric screening in the emergency department using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

OBJECTIVE: Implementation of evidence-based care processes (EBP) into the emergency department (ED) is challenging and there are only a few studies of real-world use of theory-based implementation frameworks. We report final implementation results and sustainability of an EBP geriatric screening program in the ED using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHODS: The EBP involved nurses screening older patients for delirium (Delirium Triage Screen), fall risk (4-Stage Balance Test), and vulnerability (Identification of Seniors at Risk score) with subsequent appropriate referrals to physicians, therapy specialists, or social workers. The proportions of screened adults ≥65 years old were tracked monthly. Outcomes are reported January 2021-December 2022. Barriers encountered were classified according to CFIR. Implementation strategies were classified according to the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC). RESULTS: Implementation strategies increased geriatric screening from 5% to 68%. This did not meet our prespecified goal of 80%. Change was sustained through several COVID-19 waves. Inner setting barriers included culture and implementation climate. Initially, the ED was treated as a single inner setting, but we found different cultures and uptake between ED units, including night versus day shifts. Characteristics of individuals barriers included high levels of staff turnover in both clinical and administrative roles and very low self-efficacy from stress and staff turnover. Initial attempts with individualized audit and feedback were not successful in improving self-efficacy and may have caused moral injury. Adjusting feedback to a team/unit level approach with unitwide stretch goals worked better. Identifying early adopters and conducting on-shift education increased uptake. Lessons learned regarding ED culture, implementation in interconnected health systems, and rapid cycle process improvement are reported. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic exacerbated barriers to implementation in the ED. Cognizance of a large ED as a sum of smaller units and using the CFIR model resulted in improvements.

Patient perceptions of microaggressions and discrimination toward patients during emergency department care.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in emergency department (ED) care based on race and ethnicity have been demonstrated. Patient perceptions of emergency care can have broad impacts, including poor health outcomes. Our objective was to measure and explore patient experiences of microaggressions and discrimination during ED care. METHODS: This mixed-methods study of adult patients from two urban academic EDs integrates quantitative discrimination measures and semistructured interviews of discrimination experiences during ED care. Participants completed demographic questionnaires and the Discrimination in Medical Settings (DMS) scale and were invited for a follow-up interview. Transcripts of recorded interviews were analyzed leveraging conventional content analysis with line-by-line coding for thematic descriptions. RESULTS: The cohort included 52 participants, with 30 completing the interview. Nearly half the participants were Black (n = 24, 46.1%) and half were male (n = 26, 50%). "No" or "rare" experiences of discrimination during the ED visit were reported by 22/48 (46%), some/moderate discrimination by 19/48 (39%), and significant discrimination in 7/48 (15%). Five main themes were found: (1) clinician behaviors-communication and empathy, (2) emotional response to health care team actions, (3) perceived reasons for discrimination, (4) environmental pressures in the ED, and (5) patients are hesitant to complain. We found an emergent concept where persons with moderate/high DMS scores, in discussing instances of discrimination, frequently reflected on previous health care experiences rather than on their current ED visit. CONCLUSIONS: Patients attributed microaggressions to many factors beyond race and gender, including age, socioeconomic status, and environmental pressures in the ED. Of those who endorsed moderate to significant discrimination via survey response during their recent ED visit, most described historical experiences of discrimination during their interview. Previous experiences of discrimination may have lasting effects on patient perceptions of current health care. System and clinician investment in patient rapport and satisfaction is important to prevent negative expectations for future encounters and counteract those already in place.